From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

The PC can be a powerful machine for video presentation if the
right tools are available -- and Microslop Winblows does not
qualify.

Check out this vid of a very important subject (use a downloader):

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C4S_Rfq85w>

Behold the junk! Where is the full-screen video? With this
garbage Microslop software it's not possible due to the MDI,
or Multiple Document Interface, constraint, which seems to be
the default on most Microslop desktop applications. The author
is thus forced to include the informationally useless control
panels which consume about half of the screen -- and he cannot
even hide the task bar!

Look at how choppy the "walk through" of the 3D model turns
out. Again, Microslop junk in action.

Also, the lack of virtual desktops means that he has to visibly
switch between applications which can be most annoying to the
viewer. With a VD, other applications can remain open for a
more seamless presentation.

This guy is supposedly a pro but the inferior Microslop software
and OS has him hamstrung.

With GNU/Linux a much better presentation could be effected.
There area abundant VDs available with effortless switching.
There are no MDIs, TYVM. Precise areas of the screen can be
selected for capture. Etc., etc.

Because of Microslop garbage, a potentially excellent presentation
has turned into junk.

This guy had better learn GNU/Linux and he'd better learn it
fast.
--
Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux freedom and perfection.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 12/17/25 06:46, Farley Flud wrote:

The PC can be a powerful machine for video presentation if the
right tools are available -- and Microslop Winblows does not
qualify.

Check out this vid of a very important subject (use a downloader):

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C4S_Rfq85w>

Behold the junk! Where is the full-screen video? With this
garbage Microslop software it's not possible due to the MDI,
or Multiple Document Interface, constraint, which seems to be
the default on most Microslop desktop applications. The author
is thus forced to include the informationally useless control
panels which consume about half of the screen -- and he cannot
even hide the task bar!

Look at how choppy the "walk through" of the 3D model turns
out. Again, Microslop junk in action.

Also, the lack of virtual desktops means that he has to visibly
switch between applications which can be most annoying to the
viewer. With a VD, other applications can remain open for a
more seamless presentation.

This guy is supposedly a pro but the inferior Microslop software
and OS has him hamstrung.

With GNU/Linux a much better presentation could be effected.
There area abundant VDs available with effortless switching.
There are no MDIs, TYVM. Precise areas of the screen can be
selected for capture. Etc., etc.

Because of Microslop garbage, a potentially excellent presentation
has turned into junk.

This guy had better learn GNU/Linux and he'd better learn it
fast.

Winders IS a pretty crappy system overall, and
the M$ software chain just makes it worse and
more stupid by the day. The OS is mostly naught
but splices and patches upon patches upon patches
for decades. Last solid one was W2K.

However, for Joe Consumer, it's usually "good enough"
and Joe will never understand how he's being ripped
off and put in danger by the M$ "cloud" push. And
hey, Win COMES on Joe's computers, so it MUST be best !

Linux/UNIX are "better" systems in the technical sense.
However to use them best requires an amount of "geek-ness"
most people don't possess.

As such ... expect the consumer market to remain dominated
by M$ and Apple for a LONG time - probably 'forever' until
some AI invented/managed omni-system takes shape.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:01:39 -0500, c186282 wrote:

Linux/UNIX are "better" systems in the technical sense. However to
use them best requires an amount of "geek-ness"
most people don't possess.

There was a post today in the Mint Linux subreddit. A newbie complained he
had installed LM Cinnamon but it was too much like Windows and asked what distro he should use for the 'full Linux experience'

I suggested 'sudo apt install i3' and logging into an i3 session. It will
not look like Windows.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-18, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:01:39 -0500, c186282 wrote:

Linux/UNIX are "better" systems in the technical sense. However to
use them best requires an amount of "geek-ness"
most people don't possess.

There was a post today in the Mint Linux subreddit. A newbie complained he had installed LM Cinnamon but it was too much like Windows and asked what distro he should use for the 'full Linux experience'

I suggested 'sudo apt install i3' and logging into an i3 session. It will not look like Windows.

Indeed!
--
pothead

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,
but then are shocked and offended to discover that there
are other views.

William F. Buckley, Jr.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

At 18 Dec 2025 07:15:39 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:01:39 -0500, c186282 wrote:

Linux/UNIX are "better" systems in the technical sense. However
to use them best requires an amount of "geek-ness" most people
don't possess.

There was a post today in the Mint Linux subreddit. A newbie
complained he had installed LM Cinnamon but it was too much like
Windows and asked what distro he should use for the 'full Linux
experience'

I suggested 'sudo apt install i3' and logging into an i3 session. It
will not look like Windows.

For me, the "face" of Linux has been XFCE -- it's lightweight
and capable, and it stays out of my way.

Unfortunately, there's some weirdness with the new NVIDIA drivers
interacting with the XFCE compositor that is a topic of discussion
on the NVIDIA developer forum. So to use the new driver, I can either
switch to something like Cinnamon, or turn off the compositor.

I'm just sticking with the old driver for now, debating whether
or not to make the leap to Cinnamon.

Finally, the OP is obviously trolling, as they continuously
x-post to colm and cola, with fu2 cola. Gets old.
--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
OS: Linux 6.18.1 D: Mint 22.2
NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G (580.105.08) DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
"Linux, the choice of a GNU generation."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-18 9:39 a.m., vallor wrote:

At 18 Dec 2025 07:15:39 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:01:39 -0500, c186282 wrote:

Linux/UNIX are "better" systems in the technical sense. However
to use them best requires an amount of "geek-ness" most people
don't possess.

There was a post today in the Mint Linux subreddit. A newbie
complained he had installed LM Cinnamon but it was too much like
Windows and asked what distro he should use for the 'full Linux
experience'

I suggested 'sudo apt install i3' and logging into an i3 session. It
will not look like Windows.

For me, the "face" of Linux has been XFCE -- it's lightweight
and capable, and it stays out of my way.

Unfortunately, there's some weirdness with the new NVIDIA drivers
interacting with the XFCE compositor that is a topic of discussion
on the NVIDIA developer forum. So to use the new driver, I can either
switch to something like Cinnamon, or turn off the compositor.

I'm just sticking with the old driver for now, debating whether
or not to make the leap to Cinnamon.

Finally, the OP is obviously trolling, as they continuously
x-post to colm and cola, with fu2 cola. Gets old.

He might just be making a joke. Either way, it's clear that most desktop environments available for Linux are simply a variation on Windows 95.
That's a credit to the work Microsoft did with that interface. People
seem to prefer it over the Mac interface and any other to this day.

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95
destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they
changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Windows is fine.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

At Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:03:29 -0500, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-12-18 9:39 a.m., vallor wrote:

At 18 Dec 2025 07:15:39 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:01:39 -0500, c186282 wrote:

Linux/UNIX are "better" systems in the technical sense.
However to use them best requires an amount of "geek-ness"
most people don't possess.

There was a post today in the Mint Linux subreddit. A newbie
complained he had installed LM Cinnamon but it was too much like
Windows and asked what distro he should use for the 'full Linux
experience'

I suggested 'sudo apt install i3' and logging into an i3 session.
It will not look like Windows.

For me, the "face" of Linux has been XFCE -- it's lightweight
and capable, and it stays out of my way.

Unfortunately, there's some weirdness with the new NVIDIA drivers interacting with the XFCE compositor that is a topic of discussion
on the NVIDIA developer forum. So to use the new driver, I can
either switch to something like Cinnamon, or turn off the
compositor.

I'm just sticking with the old driver for now, debating whether
or not to make the leap to Cinnamon.

Finally, the OP is obviously trolling, as they continuously
x-post to colm and cola, with fu2 cola. Gets old.

He might just be making a joke. Either way, it's clear that most
desktop environments available for Linux are simply a variation on
Windows 95. That's a credit to the work Microsoft did with that
interface.

That is true, I saw Microsoft listed on the copyrights for the
HP-UX mwm GUI that pre-dated Windows 95.

And when we first saw w95 at the campus, everybody in the PC/Network
lab in Computing Services was saying, "oh look, it's Motif". The
difference being the HP had CDE, so had virtual desktops.

People seem to prefer it over the Mac interface and any
other to this day.

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95 destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
OS: Linux 6.18.1 D: Mint 22.2
NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G (580.105.08) DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
"Jean-Luc Picard and Mister Clean: Separated at birth?"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:39:57 +0000, vallor wrote:

For me, the "face" of Linux has been XFCE -- it's lightweight and
capable, and it stays out of my way.

I have Xfce on the Debian box at work. When playing around with Linux Mint
I installed the MATE iso, but then installed xfce4. It didn't look much
like the Debian DE. I think Mint adds a little secret sauce.

I reinstalled with Cinnamon after replacing the HDD with a SSD. It was
okay although I usually go to i3. I'm mostly using it with an Arduino set
up for arduino-cli, minicom, and vim so all the pretty stuff doesn't
matter.

Somehow I've managed to avoid Nvidia. I may have had a Nvidia video card
many years ago but anything recent has been either Intel or AMD integrated graphics.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:16:48 +0000, vallor wrote:

And when we first saw w95 at the campus, everybody in the PC/Network lab
in Computing Services was saying, "oh look, it's Motif". The difference being the HP had CDE, so had virtual desktops.

Our legacy product used the NutCracker runtime, X Server, and Motif GUIs
on Windows. I doubt many users realized that other than requesting the
ability to sort by clicking on a column and so forth. We managed to do
stuff like drag'n'drop but Motif was definitely showing its age.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Dec 18, 2025 at 10:03:29 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95
destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.

Well, that and the fact that to get OS/2 on an IBM PS/2 was a special order
AND the fact that MS Office was never available on OS/2 AND the fact that
since there was so little OS/2 native software available, OS/2 became merely a better way to run Windows 3.1 apps.

A crashing Windows 3.1 app on Windows 3.1 would bring down the entire PC. On OS/2 it just crashed the Windows 3.1 subsystem.

OS/2 was quite a technical achievement. But yes it was hideously ugly. But it also got me through the Windows 3.1 era. After Windows 95 and NT 4, it was clear that OS/2 was going nowhere.

Believe or not, OS/2 is still being maintained to this day, just not by IBM. The latest release is called ArcaOS 5.1.1, released on February 16, 2025.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-18 2:32 p.m., rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:39:57 +0000, vallor wrote:

For me, the "face" of Linux has been XFCE -- it's lightweight and
capable, and it stays out of my way.

I have Xfce on the Debian box at work. When playing around with Linux Mint
I installed the MATE iso, but then installed xfce4. It didn't look much
like the Debian DE. I think Mint adds a little secret sauce.

I reinstalled with Cinnamon after replacing the HDD with a SSD. It was
okay although I usually go to i3. I'm mostly using it with an Arduino set
up for arduino-cli, minicom, and vim so all the pretty stuff doesn't
matter.

Somehow I've managed to avoid Nvidia. I may have had a Nvidia video card
many years ago but anything recent has been either Intel or AMD integrated graphics.

Linux is wonderful as long as you stay away from NVIDIA.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-18 3:01 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 10:03:29 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95
destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they
changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.

Well, that and the fact that to get OS/2 on an IBM PS/2 was a special order AND the fact that MS Office was never available on OS/2 AND the fact that since there was so little OS/2 native software available, OS/2 became merely a
better way to run Windows 3.1 apps.

A crashing Windows 3.1 app on Windows 3.1 would bring down the entire PC. On OS/2 it just crashed the Windows 3.1 subsystem.

OS/2 was quite a technical achievement. But yes it was hideously ugly. But it also got me through the Windows 3.1 era. After Windows 95 and NT 4, it was clear that OS/2 was going nowhere.

Believe or not, OS/2 is still being maintained to this day, just not by IBM. The latest release is called ArcaOS 5.1.1, released on February 16, 2025.

Yeah, I looked into it a while back. It is still a 32-bit operating
system with no 64-bit support whatsoever.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Dec 18, 2025 at 3:17:27 PM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-12-18 3:01 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 10:03:29 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95
destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they
changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.

Well, that and the fact that to get OS/2 on an IBM PS/2 was a special order >> AND the fact that MS Office was never available on OS/2 AND the fact that
since there was so little OS/2 native software available, OS/2 became merely a
better way to run Windows 3.1 apps.

A crashing Windows 3.1 app on Windows 3.1 would bring down the entire PC. On
OS/2 it just crashed the Windows 3.1 subsystem.

OS/2 was quite a technical achievement. But yes it was hideously ugly. But it
also got me through the Windows 3.1 era. After Windows 95 and NT 4, it was >> clear that OS/2 was going nowhere.

Believe or not, OS/2 is still being maintained to this day, just not by IBM. >> The latest release is called ArcaOS 5.1.1, released on February 16, 2025.

Yeah, I looked into it a while back. It is still a 32-bit operating
system with no 64-bit support whatsoever.

Yeah I saw that. It is basically just maintained with new drivers, installer etc., so it can run on modern hardware. No longer takes 25 floppy disks to install. That was always fun.

Big difference between "maintained" and "developed".
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-18 3:31 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 3:17:27 PM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-12-18 3:01 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 10:03:29 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95
destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they >>>> changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.

Well, that and the fact that to get OS/2 on an IBM PS/2 was a special order >>> AND the fact that MS Office was never available on OS/2 AND the fact that >>> since there was so little OS/2 native software available, OS/2 became merely a
better way to run Windows 3.1 apps.

A crashing Windows 3.1 app on Windows 3.1 would bring down the entire PC. On
OS/2 it just crashed the Windows 3.1 subsystem.

OS/2 was quite a technical achievement. But yes it was hideously ugly. But it
also got me through the Windows 3.1 era. After Windows 95 and NT 4, it was >>> clear that OS/2 was going nowhere.

Believe or not, OS/2 is still being maintained to this day, just not by IBM.
The latest release is called ArcaOS 5.1.1, released on February 16, 2025. >>

Yeah, I looked into it a while back. It is still a 32-bit operating
system with no 64-bit support whatsoever.

Yeah I saw that. It is basically just maintained with new drivers, installer etc., so it can run on modern hardware. No longer takes 25 floppy disks to install. That was always fun.

Big difference between "maintained" and "developed".

Does anyone or anything have a need for OS/2 nowadays? I can't imagine so.

Maybe Peter Köhlmann uses it to write a novel about heated dirt or
something, if he's still around.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

Does anyone or anything have a need for OS/2 nowadays? I can't imagine so.

The kooky astronomer and OS/2 advocate Dave Tholen might still use it.

Maybe Peter Köhlmann uses it to write a novel about heated dirt or >something, if he's still around.

--
"Peter admits viewing a YouTube video is too challenging for him! LOL!
That is just priceless!" - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one
can quote it lying)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Dec 18, 2025 at 6:01:03 PM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-12-18 3:31 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 3:17:27 PM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>

On 2025-12-18 3:01 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 10:03:29 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95
destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they >>>>> changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.

Well, that and the fact that to get OS/2 on an IBM PS/2 was a special order
AND the fact that MS Office was never available on OS/2 AND the fact that >>>> since there was so little OS/2 native software available, OS/2 became merely a
better way to run Windows 3.1 apps.

A crashing Windows 3.1 app on Windows 3.1 would bring down the entire PC. On
OS/2 it just crashed the Windows 3.1 subsystem.

OS/2 was quite a technical achievement. But yes it was hideously ugly. But it
also got me through the Windows 3.1 era. After Windows 95 and NT 4, it was
clear that OS/2 was going nowhere.

Believe or not, OS/2 is still being maintained to this day, just not by IBM.
The latest release is called ArcaOS 5.1.1, released on February 16, 2025. >>>

Yeah, I looked into it a while back. It is still a 32-bit operating
system with no 64-bit support whatsoever.

Yeah I saw that. It is basically just maintained with new drivers, installer >> etc., so it can run on modern hardware. No longer takes 25 floppy disks to >> install. That was always fun.

Big difference between "maintained" and "developed".

Does anyone or anything have a need for OS/2 nowadays? I can't imagine so.

I have no idea either. I gave up on it 40 years ago.

Maybe Peter Köhlmann uses it to write a novel about heated dirt or something, if he's still around.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Dec 18, 2025 at 7:00:59 PM EST, "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

Does anyone or anything have a need for OS/2 nowadays? I can't imagine so.

The kooky astronomer and OS/2 advocate Dave Tholen might still use it.

OMG. Now THAT'S a blast from the past. The "TholenBot" was the scourge of the OS/2 groups.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Dec 18, 2025 at 7:25:23 PM EST, "Tyrone" <none@none.none> wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 6:01:03 PM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-12-18 3:31 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 3:17:27 PM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>

On 2025-12-18 3:01 p.m., Tyrone wrote:

On Dec 18, 2025 at 10:03:29 AM EST, "CrudeSausage" <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

I wonder what role the interface played in ensuring that Windows 95 >>>>>> destroyed OS/2 back in the day. I recall OS/2's interface (before they >>>>>> changed it to be like Windows's) to be quite awful.

Well, that and the fact that to get OS/2 on an IBM PS/2 was a special order
AND the fact that MS Office was never available on OS/2 AND the fact that >>>>> since there was so little OS/2 native software available, OS/2 became merely a
better way to run Windows 3.1 apps.

A crashing Windows 3.1 app on Windows 3.1 would bring down the entire PC. On
OS/2 it just crashed the Windows 3.1 subsystem.

OS/2 was quite a technical achievement. But yes it was hideously ugly. But it
also got me through the Windows 3.1 era. After Windows 95 and NT 4, it was
clear that OS/2 was going nowhere.

Believe or not, OS/2 is still being maintained to this day, just not by IBM.
The latest release is called ArcaOS 5.1.1, released on February 16, 2025. >>>>

Yeah, I looked into it a while back. It is still a 32-bit operating
system with no 64-bit support whatsoever.

Yeah I saw that. It is basically just maintained with new drivers, installer
etc., so it can run on modern hardware. No longer takes 25 floppy disks to >>> install. That was always fun.

Big difference between "maintained" and "developed".

Does anyone or anything have a need for OS/2 nowadays? I can't imagine so.

I have no idea either. I gave up on it 40 years ago.

Sorry. I meant 30 years ago.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:15:58 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

On 2025-12-18 2:32 p.m., rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:39:57 +0000, vallor wrote:

For me, the "face" of Linux has been XFCE -- it's lightweight and
capable, and it stays out of my way.

I have Xfce on the Debian box at work. When playing around with Linux
Mint I installed the MATE iso, but then installed xfce4. It didn't look
much like the Debian DE. I think Mint adds a little secret sauce.

I reinstalled with Cinnamon after replacing the HDD with a SSD. It was
okay although I usually go to i3. I'm mostly using it with an Arduino
set up for arduino-cli, minicom, and vim so all the pretty stuff
doesn't matter.

Somehow I've managed to avoid Nvidia. I may have had a Nvidia video
card many years ago but anything recent has been either Intel or AMD
integrated graphics.

Linux is wonderful as long as you stay away from NVIDIA.

The problem may solve itself if Nvidia follows Micron's lead and says
'Screw the consumer market. There's gold in those AI hills!'

I read an article today, ArsTechnica I think, about building a gming
computer. He said there was a sweet spot earlier this year when GPUs came
down to something close to the MSRP and were obtainable and before RAM
started to quadruple in price. Seems the DDR5 RAM to provision a suitable gaming box alone can cost as much as a PlayStation 5.

The laptop people were also lowering expectations as the BOM costs jacked prices up in an already tough market.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-18 11:05 p.m., rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:15:58 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

On 2025-12-18 2:32 p.m., rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:39:57 +0000, vallor wrote:

For me, the "face" of Linux has been XFCE -- it's lightweight and
capable, and it stays out of my way.

I have Xfce on the Debian box at work. When playing around with Linux
Mint I installed the MATE iso, but then installed xfce4. It didn't look
much like the Debian DE. I think Mint adds a little secret sauce.

I reinstalled with Cinnamon after replacing the HDD with a SSD. It was
okay although I usually go to i3. I'm mostly using it with an Arduino
set up for arduino-cli, minicom, and vim so all the pretty stuff
doesn't matter.

Somehow I've managed to avoid Nvidia. I may have had a Nvidia video
card many years ago but anything recent has been either Intel or AMD
integrated graphics.

Linux is wonderful as long as you stay away from NVIDIA.

The problem may solve itself if Nvidia follows Micron's lead and says
'Screw the consumer market. There's gold in those AI hills!'

I read an article today, ArsTechnica I think, about building a gming computer. He said there was a sweet spot earlier this year when GPUs came down to something close to the MSRP and were obtainable and before RAM started to quadruple in price. Seems the DDR5 RAM to provision a suitable gaming box alone can cost as much as a PlayStation 5.

The laptop people were also lowering expectations as the BOM costs jacked prices up in an already tough market.

That might be why my GPU, even four years post purchase, is still
managing well with today's games. I imagine that developers know that expecting many of us to have RTX 50xx series chips when they require you
to take out a second mortgage is likely to have an effect on sales.
Besides, it has been shown that graphically-speaking, the improvements
today are minimal compared to a game from 2015. At this point, we're
demanding more performance for the sake of demanding it; there is no
real improvement to be had. With the current generation of RTX chips, we should be good until the next decade. I mean, practically nothing in our
daily life has significantly changed as far as the desktop experience
goes since at least 2007 or so.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Windows is fine.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:52:15 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

That might be why my GPU, even four years post purchase, is still
managing well with today's games. I imagine that developers know that expecting many of us to have RTX 50xx series chips when they require you
to take out a second mortgage is likely to have an effect on sales.
Besides, it has been shown that graphically-speaking, the improvements
today are minimal compared to a game from 2015. At this point, we're demanding more performance for the sake of demanding it; there is no
real improvement to be had. With the current generation of RTX chips, we should be good until the next decade. I mean, practically nothing in our daily life has significantly changed as far as the desktop experience
goes since at least 2007 or so.

I don't do games and don't know the jargon but when I see people on some
of the forums complaining 'Superzork on my Linux box doesn't work at 1700
fps with my 4K monitor' I wonder how much that really impacts the user experience.

It isn't a unique phenomenon. Pick any field, audio reproduction,
photography, coffee, and you'll find people who claim to perceive stuff
not perceptible to mere mortals.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Tyrone wrote:

chrisv wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

Does anyone or anything have a need for OS/2 nowadays? I can't imagine so. >>

The kooky astronomer and OS/2 advocate Dave Tholen might still use it.

OMG. Now THAT'S a blast from the past.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

The "TholenBot" was the scourge of the OS/2 groups.

Classic invective, as expected from someone lacking a logical
argument.

8)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-19 3:11 p.m., rbowman wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:52:15 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

That might be why my GPU, even four years post purchase, is still
managing well with today's games. I imagine that developers know that
expecting many of us to have RTX 50xx series chips when they require you
to take out a second mortgage is likely to have an effect on sales.
Besides, it has been shown that graphically-speaking, the improvements
today are minimal compared to a game from 2015. At this point, we're
demanding more performance for the sake of demanding it; there is no
real improvement to be had. With the current generation of RTX chips, we
should be good until the next decade. I mean, practically nothing in our
daily life has significantly changed as far as the desktop experience
goes since at least 2007 or so.

I don't do games and don't know the jargon but when I see people on some
of the forums complaining 'Superzork on my Linux box doesn't work at 1700
fps with my 4K monitor' I wonder how much that really impacts the user experience.

I would never complain that I don't get 2,000 FPS from any game. For me,
it just needs to get 60 FPS, even if my monitor is set at 144hz. At some point, complaining just means that you're a brat.

It isn't a unique phenomenon. Pick any field, audio reproduction, photography, coffee, and you'll find people who claim to perceive stuff
not perceptible to mere mortals.

Most of it has to do with people being used to a specific way of doing
things. Take GIMP versus Photoshop as an example. You can probably do
just about everything in GIMP that you would in PHotoshop, but you have
to do it different. It's the same with Microsoft Office and LibreOffice.
The fact that the process differs is unacceptable to some.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 20 Dec 2025 08:28:25 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

I would never complain that I don't get 2,000 FPS from any game. For me,
it just needs to get 60 FPS, even if my monitor is set at 144hz. At some point, complaining just means that you're a brat.

There are quite a few brats in places like r/Fedora. Most are bitching
about some game.

Most of it has to do with people being used to a specific way of doing things. Take GIMP versus Photoshop as an example. You can probably do
just about everything in GIMP that you would in PHotoshop, but you have
to do it different. It's the same with Microsoft Office and LibreOffice.
The fact that the process differs is unacceptable to some.

No, I fully understand that problem. A friend likes OnlyOffice because he
says its more like Office than LibreOffice. I wouldn't know. I've never
used Photoshop but GIMP is my poster child for a really horrible UX.

What I meant are the aficionados that perceive features most mortals
don't. For example the wine snobs with their 'a subtle hint of gerbil shit with overtones of burnt garlic and the mouthfeel of Listerine'. Some of
the gamers sound like they're reciting hardware specs rather than what
they can really see.

I may be wrong of course. A coworker stopped by my desk and asked 'how can
you stand that horrible flickering monitor?' 'Flickering, Joni?' I mean
it wasn't the greatest CRT but I wasn't going to have a seizure using it.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-12-21 12:28 a.m., rbowman wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2025 08:28:25 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

I would never complain that I don't get 2,000 FPS from any game. For me,
it just needs to get 60 FPS, even if my monitor is set at 144hz. At some
point, complaining just means that you're a brat.

There are quite a few brats in places like r/Fedora. Most are bitching
about some game.

If they have an NVIDIA GPU and use Fedora, that's their first problem.
That terrible distribution would force me to reinstall the NVIDIA driver
all the time. I didn't even get to try a game out because I was
constantly tackling that first issue.

Most of it has to do with people being used to a specific way of doing
things. Take GIMP versus Photoshop as an example. You can probably do
just about everything in GIMP that you would in PHotoshop, but you have
to do it different. It's the same with Microsoft Office and LibreOffice.
The fact that the process differs is unacceptable to some.

No, I fully understand that problem. A friend likes OnlyOffice because he says its more like Office than LibreOffice. I wouldn't know. I've never
used Photoshop but GIMP is my poster child for a really horrible UX.

OnlyOffice and WPS Office both look like excellent substitutes to
Microsoft Office, and they are both available as native packages in
Linux. Nobody needs to struggle with LibreOffice if they don't want to.

What I meant are the aficionados that perceive features most mortals
don't. For example the wine snobs with their 'a subtle hint of gerbil shit with overtones of burnt garlic and the mouthfeel of Listerine'. Some of
the gamers sound like they're reciting hardware specs rather than what
they can really see.

I may be wrong of course. A coworker stopped by my desk and asked 'how can you stand that horrible flickering monitor?' 'Flickering, Joni?' I mean
it wasn't the greatest CRT but I wasn't going to have a seizure using it.

I remember a friend of mine having a rather big CRT at his house every
time I'd visit him. The thing was blurry as heck, but he kept telling me
that it was the best monitor he'd ever had and so on. I, for one, am
glad the days of CRTs are gone.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2